By Cecilia Alemany and - -
MONTEVIDEO, Nov 18 2008 (IPS)

From 29 November to 2 December 2008 in Doha, Qatar, the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development will be reviewed. It should be an opportunity to establish the foundation for a more inclusive and democratic international financial system, write Cecilia Alemany, manager at the Association for Women\’s Rights in Development (AWID) and Anne Schoenstein, a consultant with the Association for Women\’s Rights in Development (AWID). In this article, the author writes that at the Qatar conference there will not be a Declaration of Consensus, only an Outcome document, because among other actors the US has been blocking any substantive commitment or binding obligation on development. Even with the more progressive new US president, the underlying mechanisms of the \”development industry\” or the \”development business\” are still based on a set of hypothesis and principles that undermine the right to development and to self-determination. Changing them will require true political will. For women\’s rights groups and advocates, the Monterrey Consensus did not go far enough, and we may experience the same disappointment with the Doha Review Conference if there is no reference to clear gender equality commitments. We need a new kind of leadership from those groups that were historically marginalised, including women. The new political landscape in the US is an opportunity and an optimistic sign in this sense. Inclusiveness is not just \”politically correct\”; now it is realpolitik.

Six years ago heads of state and government from around the world signed the Monterrey Consensus at the first UN international conference on Financing for Development. This was the first time that the UN entered this field, which up to then had been essentially the exclusive domain of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In that period, the early days of the September 11 era, a “new” international scenario was emerging. Thus far the XXI century is more dynamic (and uncertain) than any previous period. Today we are facing a new world even if the wars led by the US are not over. We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the 1929 crash, with impacts that we cannot yet understand. Moreover, the reactions to the crisis from most of the developed country governments contradict all the free market and minimal state theories they imposed on developing countries in the last decades. And in this new environment, with the erosion of US legitimacy as an international power, Barack Obama won the US presidency.

The main goals of the Monterrey Consensus remain pertinent, but the political and other means needed to achieve them are still just promises. The international community has yet to deliver on poverty eradication, sustained economic growth (for all), and sustainable development.

The Monterrey Consensus aimed to enhance “the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial, and trading systems in support of development”. But today the system is collapsing. The high number of people living in poverty, many of them women, is only one sign of the structural failures of the international financial system.

The current financial crisis is an institutional crisis, a crisis of the international system designed after World War II. However, the paradigm promoted by the World Bank and the IMF still survives and will appear in the Monterrey Consensus Review. Transnational corporations, speculators, big players’ interests, the World Bank, and the IMF have been setting the rules related to financing for the last decades. Their lack of accountability, transparency, and legitimacy is evident in the current crisis scenario.

At the Qatar conference, the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus will be reviewed. There will not be a Declaration of Consensus, only an Outcome document, because the US, among other actors, has been blocking any substantive commitment or binding obligation on development -as well as trying to reduce the political relevance of the UN.

Even with the more progressive new US President, the underlying mechanisms of the “development industry” or the “development business” are still based on a set of hypothesis and principles that undermine the right to development and to self-determination. Changing them will require true political will.

During the preparation and negotiation process to generate the Doha Outcome Document, women’s groups were disappointed by the fact that even though most political actors understand that the way to reduce poverty is through reducing inequalities, they do not act accordingly. This is, however, imperative, especially for many women and other marginalised people because they are particularly affected by poverty and inequality given their socially-constructed role and position within most societies (including in politics, business, the community, and the family).

Unfortunately, most political actors easily delete references to gender mainstreaming or the need to give full attention to development goals when designing and implementing development strategies. So far the negotiations in Doha are about the development vision of bureaucrats and political leaders. At the same time the establishment now accepts the need for a new multilateralism and the understanding that growth itself does not ensure the reduction of poverty and inequality or even economic stability and sustainability.

For women’s rights groups and advocates, the Monterrey Consensus did not go far enough, and we may experience the same disappointment with the Doha Review Conference if there is no reference to clear gender equality commitments.

The development model is in crisis and there is no easy answer to how to build a more inclusive and democratic international system. We need a new kind of leadership from those groups that were historically marginalised, including women. The new political landscape in the US is an opportunity and a cause for optimism in this sense. Inclusiveness is not just “politically correct”; now it is realpolitik. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Cecilia Alemany
VANCOUVER, Canada, Jul 30 2008 (IPS)

For women's rights and women's empowerment groups, the 3rd High Level Conference on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, in September, and the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Doha, in December, are opportunities to advance financing for gender equality issues.

Cecilia Alemany Credit:

On their wish-list is the integration of gender dimensions not just between trade, development, foreign direct investment, debt, and international cooperation, but also governance, human rights and gender equality, says Cecilia Alemany of the Association for Women's Rights in Development, a Canada-based international women's rights NGO.

IPS correspondent Am Johal interviewed Alemany, the manager of influencing development actors and practices at AWID.

IPS: What are the gaps and barriers that exist today in establishing women's rights around the world?

Cecilia Alemany: The national and international political power is still very masculine, and the negotiators at the OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development], or the World Trade Organisation are not really sensitive to how the arrangements for liberalisation or trade quotas will affect populations and particularly women.

This is only one part of the problem. Policy-makers and negotiations at the national and international level are most of the time more influenced by corporate interests than by their societies in general. Those groups and women that will be affected by the decisions usually are not considered, and sadly they are never invited to the table.

The Women's Working Group on Financing for Development organised recently a consultation in New York (in June) and part of the analysis of the final statement is that "trade is not an end in itself – it must serve pro-people and inclusive development, the realisation of human rights and the right to development for all, and the achievement of a caring economy and environmental sustainability. A gender perspective of trade is a holistic one, supportive of the broader framework of international conventions and multilateral commitment for the common good."

IPS: Is there a link being made between capacity development and actual public policy changes being enacted by those at the forefront of pushing for women's equality?

CA: Yes, of course. Policy-makers at all levels are not always integrating the gender dimension in their decisions. Internationally, it is flagrant how the current agendas on international cooperation for instance are not integrating clear development goals such as gender equality, human rights and environmental sustainability. Several developed countries that are supposed to be more progressive to women's rights are quite ignorant on how to integrate development, human rights and gender equality. So, there is a lot of technical advance in these discussions but not real results on the ground.

The "donors community" is leading an international debate and process on "aid effectiveness" that is based on the fact that international cooperation has not been effective and is not delivering development results on the ground. However, women's voices in this debate are not considered, and human rights and gender equality are seen by these policy-makers (mostly negotiating under the OECD) as "cross-cutting issues", what in practical terms means "non-issues".

IPS: What are the main concerns related to the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA), in terms of civil society and particularly from women's groups?

CA: The current AAA draft contains very few concrete and time-bound commitments which could be monitored in the run-up to 2010. The AAA must ensure that the implementation of the Paris Declaration and the improvement of aid quality do not undermine, but contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, human rights obligations, the achievement of commitments on gender equality, decent work for all, and the protection of environmental sustainability.

IPS: What about the relationship between donors and developing country governments? Will there be more transparency about aid?

CA: The AAA and all the Aid Effectiveness agenda has to be conceived in a broader framework of development effectiveness, and recognise that the main space and forum for norm-setting and policy design ensure equal participation for all the countries is the United Nations, particularly through the Development Cooperation Forum and the Financing for Development process towards Doha (December 2008).

The understanding of transparency in the draft AAA seems rather narrow. It is essential that donors share more information with developing country governments to facilitate effective and accountable budget processes, but citizens also have a right to be well-informed about aid in their country.

Transparency is about more than "disclosure", it should also be about participation in decision-making.

It is imperative that the AAA agrees to a new way to measure ownership, which recognises that ownership must be driven by countries' own citizens, not by donors or the World Bank. Indicators of ownership must measure the participation of citizens, civil society and parliaments in deciding, planning, implementing and assessing national plans, policies, programmes and budgets.

Excerpt: